Table of Contents

National Evaluation of the National Institute of Justice Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Program, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 3814)

Principal Investigator(s):DuPree, Cheron, Institute for Law and Justice

Summary:

This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the
Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus
Program), which was conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice
under a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding
from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). The Campus Program was
comprised of 38 colleges or universities, which received funding in
1999 and 2000. Part 1 data consist of basic demographic information
about each campus and the violence against women programs and services
avai... (more info)

This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the
Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus
Program), which was conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice
under a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding
from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). The Campus Program was
comprised of 38 colleges or universities, which received funding in
1999 and 2000. Part 1 data consist of basic demographic information
about each campus and the violence against women programs and services
available at each site. Data for Part 2, collected from
questionnaires administered to grant project staff, documented
perceptions about the Campus Program project and participation and
collaboration from those involved in the partnership with each college
or university (i.e., non-profit, non-governmental victim service
providers).

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Study Description

Citation

DuPree, Cheron. NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE GRANTS TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN ON CAMPUS PROGRAM, 2001-2002. ICPSR version. Washington, DC: Institute for Law and Justice [producer], 2003. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2003. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03814.v1

Unit of Observation:
Part 1: Colleges and universities. Part 2:
Individuals

Universe:
Grantees representing the 38 project sites comprising the
Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program in 1999 and
2000.

Data Types:
administrative records data, and survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The user guide, codebook, and data collection
instrument are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
This study was undertaken as a process evaluation
of 1999 and 2000 grantees participating in the Grants to Combat
Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus Program), which was
conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice under a grant from the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding from the Violence
Against Women Office (VAWO). The research team sought (1) to provide a
national program- level process evaluation of the Campus Program, and
(2) to inform policies and practices that address violence against
women on campuses and ensure victim safety and offender
accountability. The research team proposed a process evaluation aimed
at describing the process of program planning, implementation, and
problem resolution. The premise of the VAWO Campus Program was that
colleges and universities had the ability to educate and shape the
values, attitudes, and behaviors of young men and women toward the
issue of violence against women. In 1994 Congress passed the Violence
Against Women Act to improve the criminal justice system's response to
the crimes of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. The
need to address the victimization of college women was supported by
research indicating that college women were at a greater risk of rape
and other forms of sexual assault than women of comparable age in the
general population. In 1998 VAWO received funds for the Campus
Program, which recognized that within the college and university
environment, educational programming on violence against women, victim
assistance resources, reporting and investigative processes,
disciplinary policies, and other factors can have a significant
influence on women's safety and on whether victims step forward to
seek assistance and report these crimes. Federal Fiscal Year 1999 was
the first year in which colleges and universities received funding
under the Campus Program. The Campus Program grantees varied
geographically, by size, and by other demographic characteristics, and
included both public and private institutions. The size of the student
bodies ranged from approximately 800 to more than 50,000. VAWO's grant
application package for the Campus Program outlined three minimum
requirements that all 38 projects were required to address. First, all
projects were expected to create a coordinated community response to
violence against women on campus and were encouraged to form
partnerships with at least one non-profit, non-governmental victim
service provider. Second, grantees were to establish a mandatory
prevention and education program for all incoming students, working in
collaboration with campus and community-based victim advocacy
organizations. The program was to include information about dating
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Third, grantees were required
to train campus police to respond effectively in sexual assault,
domestic violence, and stalking cases. An additional requirement was
added for fiscal 2000 grantees, which called for training of judicial
board members.

Study Design:
Specifically, the process evaluation was to
consist of a review of all grantees in the program through visits to
each site. Prior to the evaluation's start, the research team
established an advisory board to aid in designing the methodology.
This board was composed of six individuals, including a researcher who
had done work in the area of violence against women on campuses, a
student, a university police chief, a sexual assault services
coordinator from a university, and a director of student judicial
services. Because of the large number of sites in the program, the
research team was limited in the extent to which a thorough process
evaluation could be conducted. At the request of NIJ, the research
staff made only one trip to each site to collect administrative
records data and conduct interviews relating to project activities.
There were not enough funds to make subsequent trips to sites to judge
their progress over time. Moreover, it was not possible to do
follow-up telephone calls thereby maintaining contact with grantees on
their implementation efforts. In short, the process evaluation
depended on a snapshot view of the campuses at the time of the site
visit. Each visit typically lasted two to three days, during which as
many as a dozen interviews might take place. Interviewees usually
included the project director, on-campus advocate, campus law
enforcement, judicial affairs personnel, education coordinator,
women's center, community partners, dean of students, representatives
from student organizations, and project evaluator. Project directors
frequently prepared large packets of information on their institutions
and their project activities for the research staff. It was common for
interviewees to provide documentation of their role in the project, or
summary information on their office/organization. From the interviews,
the research team typically collected copies of progress reports sent
to VAWO, summary sheets of campus demographics, student handbooks,
training manuals for advocates and disciplinary board members, and
copies of all orientation materials as well as other educational
curriculum materials, newspaper articles relating to the project,
relevant police orders, crime statistics, and summary advocacy
statistics. Other items collected across the campuses ranged from
copies of all advertising materials (mailers, posters, mugs, t-shirts,
magnets, buttons) to videos of major project presentations. To
facilitate the visits, the research team developed several protocols
to allow for structured interviews. The protocols provided for
consistent data collection across the campuses. After conducting a
visit, the research staff prepared a site report, usually 20 to 25
pages in length, which represented a process evaluation report for a
particular grantee/site. These reports were sent to the project
directors at the sites for their review. The research staff made
appropriate changes to the reports as a result of these reviews and
then submitted them to NIJ as a deliverable product from the
evaluation. Part 1 data consist of basic information about each
grantee's campus and the violence against women programs and services
available at each site. Data for Part 2 were collected using a
Partnership Survey, which was a supplement to the site visit
observations. The purpose of the survey, which was administered to
grant project staff, was to document perceptions of project
participants about program collaboration. From the 35-item
questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point
scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with items grouped
into three categories: those regarding the partnership, the project,
and individual participation. Respondents were also invited to provide
comments on any survey item. The survey questionnaire was made
available for downloading to all project directors through the
Institute of Law and Justice's Web site. Copies were also distributed
at site visit interviews. Respondents were given the option of mailing
or faxing their completed surveys. A total of 247 surveys were
received, representing 33 of the 38 campuses.

Sample:
All 38 grantee project sites were targeted for inclusion
in the sample for Part 1. Three project sites (Jamestown College,
Tulane University, and University of Connecticut) represented
consortiums. The Jamestown College and Tulane University projects
involved more than one university participating in grant activities,
although coordination of the grants took place on their respective
campuses. The Jamestown College consortium included five other
campuses: the University of North Dakota, North Dakota State College
of Science, Lake Region State College, Mayville State University, and
Fort Berthold Community College, a tribal institution. Tulane's
consortium included Southern University at New Orleans and the
University of New Orleans. The third consortium project was
administered by the University of Connecticut, which implemented the
project on its main campus first, and at the time of the evaluation
only represented one institution. The Jamestown College and Tulane
University sites were not included in the final sample, resulting in
36 grantee project sites. For Part 2, all project staff (either
employees of the college/university or employees of one of the
community partners) who were present during the site visit were
targeted for inclusion in the sample. A total of 247 surveys were
received, representing 33 of the 38 campuses.

Data Source:

For Part 1 administrative records data were collected
from the United States of Education, the College Board, and official
records provided by representatives from each college's or
university's Campus Program. Data for Part 2 were collected from
surveys administered to grant project staff and participants.

Description of Variables:
Variables for Part 1 include whether an institution
was public or private, located in an urban, suburban, or rural area,
the number of students comprising the student population, whether
students were residential or commuters, the year of the grant award,
award amount, level of programming at the time of the award, whether
there were campus police special units, conduct code for stalking,
coordinated community response, relationship violence counseling, a
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), sexual assault counseling, court
accompaniment, hospital accompaniment, shelter services, legal
advocacy services, hot-lines, language interpreters, and if campus
police had any of the following training: sexual assault sensitivity
training, domestic violence sensitivity training, stalking sensitivity
training, sexual assault procedural training, and domestic violence
training. Other variables include type of coordinated community
response and educational programming, and the year violence against
women services began on campus. Variables for Part 2 include whether a
respondent was a university employee, whether respondents agreed or
disagreed that the partnership would remain in place once federal
funding was gone, if the partners in the project worked well together,
were vested in the project, had common goals, were open to outside
ideas or suggestions, had the victims' needs in mind, and if the
partners perceived a shared responsibility for the success of the
joint projects and activities. Respondents also offered their opinions
on if relevant information was shared in a timely fashion, if there
were barriers to effective communication, if information was shared
with the public, if the partnership had realistic, obtainable, and
measurable goals, if the partnership was on track for meeting goals,
if the project had the potential to improve the safety or well-being
of victims, if victims were encouraged to report victimization, if
violence against women had increased since the inception of the
project, if the project improved victim advocacy services on campus,
if the project considered cultural, racial, and ethnic differences
when planning projects and activities, and whether the project was
considered a success.

Response Rates:
Part 1: inap. For Part 2, an average of 11
surveys were returned from each campus, the median return rate was
smaller (7 surveys per campus). The range of returned surveys included
as few as 1 and as many as 16 surveys.

Presence of Common Scales:
Several Likert-type scales were used in Part 2.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Created online analysis version with question text.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:2003-10-30

Version History:

2006-03-30 File UG3814.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2006-03-30 File CQ3814.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

Download Statistics

Located within ICPSR, NACJD is sponsored by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, and the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).